openclaw_run

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions SSH access and agent capabilities but does not disclose behavior like synchronous waiting, error handling, or side effects. The timeout_seconds parameter implies a wait but is not explained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loaded, and information-dense. Three sentences deliver purpose, capability, and usage guidance without unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is somewhat thin. It lacks details on return format, error scenarios, and explicit comparisons to alternatives like openclaw_cron_run. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (all parameters documented). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Send'), the resource ('OpenClaw AI agent'), and the method ('via SSH'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like claude_run, codex_run, gemini_run, and local_llm_run by specifying that this delegates complex tasks that OpenClaw already knows how to handle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to delegate complex tasks that OpenClaw already knows how to handle', providing a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling run tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.